Who supports the IMBRA?

[SirLancelot]

In reading through some of the past posts on here, I discovered the story about Jany and Cindy and their plight. Now when that was happening in realtime, I can empathize with the outrage and the call for new laws to prevent such events from happening again in the future, but now that the IMBRA law has passed and is implemented, it has affected so many innocent lives in such a negative way, do you folks still support this law? It's caused endless delays for many petitioners.

 

I wasn't here when the events unfolded with Jany, so I can't say about the past, but currently, I am no supporter of the IMBRA law. I believe it penalizes the majority of the innocent to try and prevent the minority of evil doers. You don't punish the innocents in trying to locate and prosecute the guilty parties.

 

I'd like to hear other people's thoughts on this.

[cosmiclobster]

It's kinda like closing the barn door after all of the aminals have run off.

They are giving a hard time to the people who come here legally but still have no idea of what to do with the 10+ million who willingly and knowingly broke the law to come to the USA.

 

We do need a law that will protect perverts from being part of the immigration process to prevent future Jany's, but they could have done that as part of the months long background check process.

 

Our current administration has consistently made govt more top heavy with more departments and bosses while the US citizen gets more burdened by complicated regulations and stacks of paperwork that is confusing and often misleading.

 

Just my 2 yuan.

Edited September 8, 2006 by cosmiclobster (see edit history)

[sweattrl1]

It's kinda like closing the barn door after all of the aminals have run off.

They are giving a hard time to the people who come here legally but still have no idea of what to do with the 10+ million who willingly and knowingly broke the law to come to the USA.

 

We do need a law that will protect perverts from being part of the immigration process to prevent future Jany's, but they could have done that as part of the months long background check process.

 

Our current administration has consistently made govt more top heavy with more departments and bosses while the US citizen gets more burdened by complicated regulations and stacks of paperwork that is confusing and often misleading.

 

Just my 2 yuan.

i fully agree with both of you,

[david_dawei]

From concept to implementation there's problems with IMBRA... probably too many issues that could be commented on.

 

Here are a few that bother me about the law:

- Seeks to protect women immigrating to the US. (Why are we so selective in protecting foreign women instead of domestic woman on domestic boards). Just have a "pervert check" and get rid of all the red tape and strangling regulation...

- The need to produce court records, police reports, etc to show your background seems going a bit far... particuarly for those who should be cleared of the past.

- Filing limitations ??? WTF is this about? You can only file and/or marry someone from outside so many times (but you can marry unlimited in this 'land of divorce ridden US'). The governments creeping too far into one's personal life and decisions. State run morality.

- It feels like an open field full of land minds... Litigation started almost immediately. Someone's going to sue for some form of discrimination (the US is good for that victimization role).. however silly I think the argue is for it.

- Everyone appeared uncertain of what to do and behind schedule... too many stories, but when the govt learn to operate with any type of efficient in this immigration process would be a relief.

- Definitions are not very clear; the form doesn't disclose all that the law really defines.. very misleading to many and some will fall into possibly filing it wrong; then something comes up at the interview (VO: "did the broker give you a form about the USC"... SO: "what broker?" )... wait till this happens; we haven't seen the delays and blue slips from this yet.

[warpedbored]

IMO it is better than nothing. Some form of criminal background check needs to be given to the beneficiary. IMBRA goes too far though. They should be doing a background check on petitioners anyway, if nothing else than for national security. Criminal records are a matter of public record so no ones rights are infringed by revealing them. Foreign women don't know how to go about finding these things out on their own. They took a good idea bollixed it all up with govt red tape and made too complicated. Typical bureaucracy.

[Guest ShaQuaNew]

It's a worthless and hopeless law that will do NOTHING more than cause pain and hardship to the honest. This pain and hardship will be further exacerbated by needless delays. Who does it help? It helps poliiticians sell talking points and endless rhethoric.

 

Here's the deal. Any time the government enters into the business of trying to protect its citizens from making stupid choices, it will miss the mark. Not by a little, but a lot. The vast majority of those that abuse, or intend to sexually abuse others have NEVER been involved in the criminal justice system, so consequently, they will not show up on radar.

 

We live in a world that best functions from within the framework of family, friends, and common sense. People make decisions every day. Some good, some bad. The onus is and should be on those that do the picking. These days so many politicians, fueled by money hungry lawyers are seeking for someone to blame. If Otis chooses to drink and gets liver disease, should you sue the liquor company? If Henry chooses to smoke, and later dies of cancer, whose fault is it? Is it really that it's anyone's fault? Why is it so important to blame? Things happen. When it comes to inconvenienciing many to protect the few, then the inconvenience is best re-examined.

 

For example: We all tolerate the delays at the airports these days to make sure some islamic fascist hasn't made their way onto the plane with intent to do others harm. We know this method works. But, there is absolutely no evidence WHATSOEVER that screening everyone just to find one guy that has a weiner problem has ever prevented someone from sleeping with some sick guy, and then after sleeping with him, deciding to do it again....

Edited September 8, 2006 by ShaQuaNew (see edit history)

[RLS]

IMBRA has definately held me back. I am all for protecting women, but not just foreign women. As David mentioned, what about domestic women? I think that there were already laws in place for doing this. I'm interested in this issue that keeps popping up in my head: One question on the RFE asks if you met your wife or fiance' through a marriage broker. No one really knew how to answer that question. There are many threads on it. Personally, I answered "no." I met my SO on Asia Euro like many others did in CFL. I know another member here who answered "yes." He got his approval way ahead of me. By the way, I don't have my approval yet. I'm wondering if there is a connection with approvals or no approvals depending on how you answered that question. I don't know and I don't know if we will ever find out. If there is a connection, it is not fair because they never gave any clues or instructions on how to answer the question. We had to "Guess" at it. It is just very frustrating because I am an American who can trace my ancestry back to the Revolutionary War and before that. I served my country in the U.S. Airforce. I have never been arrested for anything, and yet, I must go through this Hell of waiting. I live in a state where thousands of illegals pour across the borders and get to stay here. I'm seeing a playing field that is not even level, but upside down. Got that off my chest - thanks.

Edited September 8, 2006 by RLS (see edit history)

[LeeFisher3]

While I agree many people have been delayed due to IMBRA.

 

We need to remember that the USCIS did little or nothing about implementing the new law until many months after the fact.

 

Instead of being proactive and getting things moving they waited until after the NVC (DOS) received a determination on what cases really applied. This determination came 2-3 after the law went into affect.

 

Then at a later date the USCIS started deciding what questions they should ask to comply with IMBRA and began re-designing their form.

 

If this was private enterprise people would have been working on this beginning the second week of January and been requesting a determination on who was affected that same week. Notifications would have gone out to the public a month before the new law went into affect trying to inform the public as to what the strategy would be on March 6, 2006.

 

The end result would have been that by the 3rd week in February the new form would have been published and the service centers would have an RFE system in place for those who's petitions arrived to be processed on the day the law went into place.

 

But you must remember, people in the private sector don't like to be seen as the bad guy and take responsibility for their actions.

 

Those who wish to put the blame for this mess on any one political party forget that the government employees do things at their own pace and could care less who is in power, they do their job the same way no matter what. Trying to make political hay out of the mess from our efficient government employees is absurd.

[Yuanyang]

I agree for the most part; especially the 'feel good' part. I wonder how much pork was also buried within the act.

 

One note is that when government does come up with new industry regulations (this based on my own experiences) the company becomes proactive, planning on how the regulation will impact it, how to monitor it (if necessary) how to document the compliance etc... All of this done and prepared before the law comes into effect.

 

Now compare to when the regulation impacts another government agency.... you have the current IMBRA fiasco.

[RLS]

Interesting comments.

 

I have to agree that IMBRA was well intentioned, but the legislation is quite flawed and totally impractible. I support the underlying premise, but this sure ain't the way to address the problem.

 

IMBRA is 'feel good' legislation sponsored by an elected politician. Implementation is carried out by political appointees within their respective agencies. The very same politicians who enacted this 'feel good' law also passed a lot of other 'feel good' laws that handcuffs agencies from responding to new legislation timely. Remember, any new form has to go to OMB for approval before it can be used. That takes time. Clarification of the law has to go to the Attorney General's office for interpretation. Rules have to be developed to address the implementation and there is a required process for doing so. All of these roadblocks are the result of other well intentioned 'feel good' legislation.

 

Never, ever compare government to private industry. It's apples and oranges. Take most any Fortune 500 company and force them to comply with the rules and regulations required of a governmental agency and they would fold their hand or simply go down the tubes because they couldn't compete.

 

The last scapegoat in the immigration nightmare is the poor bastard that is trying to do a good job within the many constraints placed on them. Don't blame the person at the counter for the ills of the agency. The blame belongs on the voters, elected politicians and their croonies who get appointed as department heads. True, there are some who should be fired on the spot, but once again thank the politicians and unions that can make that near impossible to do. And when it comes to getting rid of a worthless employee, the courts get a piece of the responsibilty for that too. The courts are very good at ordering reinstatement of an employee who was fired because an "i" was not dotted or a "t" was not crossed.

 

[/rant]

 

Don, I agree with you. But, in the long run, it doesn't matter who you blame. We seem to have a government agency with no checks and balances. There is no "rooster" guarding the "hen house" so to speak. It's like police agencies who investigate themselves. You know what the outcome will be. Percentage wise, a very tiny percentage of police officers ever get convicted of wrong doing. Why? Because the D.A. and the law enforcement agencies have to stick together to guard against law suits. We say that we have a country of laws and fair and equal justice. Do we? When we have a government who policeses themselves, then we have a dictatorship or, to put it mildly, total government control.

[C4Racer]

 

- Seeks to protect women immigrating to the US. (Why are we so selective in protecting foreign women instead of domestic woman on domestic boards). Just have a "pervert check" and get rid of all the red tape and strangling regulation...

 

IMBRA has definately held me back. I am all for protecting women, but not just foreign women. As David mentioned, what about domestic women?

 

I agree with just about everything said so far, one thing to remember IMBRA is one very small section of a new law. This law is call Violence against Women and Children Act. So they are trying to protect all women and chlidren. The one big issue is this will not work very well as you can not legislate morality. You must put something into place in the school system. The only way to correct this problem is through education.

 

Foreign women don't know how to go about finding these things out on their own.

 

Even if they did know how, they are very limited in what they can do. Internet searches can be done, but require a credit card. How many people in China or Russia have a credit card?

Edited September 9, 2006 by C4Racer (see edit history)